Good sermon (SSPX)

[Pax_et_Caritas]

The following is a good and interesting sermon by Fr. Hewko of the SSPX.

If anyone wonders why they are taking the stand they are, this will explain it. Whether you agree or not, this will explain their position.

Part 1:

bvmacademy.org/audio-sermons-details.php?audioID=163

Part 2:

bvmacademy.org/audio-sermons-details.php?audioID=164

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

There always appears to be good reasons to do the wrong thing.

That does not mean that one should do them though.

As the Catechism says;

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.
1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.
1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.
1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[bkovacs]

I guy that I work with who goes to a SSPX chapel in Chicago told me that an announcement from the Pope on the removal of the excommunications of the four Bishops may come in mid December from what he heard.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I guy that I work with who goes to a SSPX chapel in Chicago told me that an announcement from the Pope on the removal of the excommunications of the four Bishops may come in mid December from what he heard.

It’s not a removal of the excommunicated, but a declaration that it was null and void from the beginning due to a defect in form, which is exactly what the SSPX has said the entire time.

If the Archbishop acted out of what he perceived to be a necessity there was no valid excommunicated. This is written into canon law.

Supposedly, Rome is only requiring that the SSPX acknowledge that they acted out of what they perceived to be necessity, and the Pope is prepared to declare that the “excommunication” was null and void. In fact, the decree of is supposedly already prepared awaiting the Pope’s signature.

Before the Pope published Summorum Pontificum, in which he admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated, or legally forbidden (which is what the SSPX said all along, and which virtually EVERY OTHER Bishop of the Church denied), Bishop Fellay of the SSPX asked that the SSPX offer up a million Rosaries for the publication of the document, which he believed was coming.

Now, recently Bishop Fellay made a similar request: He requested that another million plus Rosaries be offered up for Rome to lift the “excommunication”, which implies to me that he is aware that it is close. That is one of the intentions of my daily Rosary.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Some of you may know the Priest who wrote the following sermon. I won’t give his name, but he is a Father’s of Mercy Priest who used to be a Priest for Mother Angelica, and was often on EWTN. The following sermon was given on September 14 - the one year anniversary of Summorum Pontificum

“He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross. Therefore God also has exalted Him” (Philippians) -

Triumph of the Cross

As many of you know, our parish is under the heavenly patronage of St. Helen, Mother of the Emperor Constantine and foundress of the True Cross of Christ. Even before they embraced Christianity, St. Helen and her son saw the power of the Cross, and saw It as a great treasure. Constantine,

seeking to defeat his enemies and to establish his reign, prayed to the true God for a sign of victory. The Almighty answered the prayer of this pagan with a vision in the sky of a flaming cross along with the words,

In Hoc Signo Vinces - In This Sign You Shall Conquer. Immediately,

Constantine ordered that a cross be made and that this symbol of victory would become the standard of his whole army.

Later, Constantine would receive a special message from God in a dream just before a decisive battle. He ordered his soldiers to paint a cross upon their shields. In October of the year 312 AD, Constantine and his army gained victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. He later entered Rome as the conqueror. Constantine would then legalize the Christian religion throughout the entire Roman Empire and would eventually be baptized himself.

St. Helen, mother of the emperor, wished to find this treasure that had brought victory. She went down to the Holy Land in the early part of the 4th century to find the actual wood upon which Christ died. Two hundred years before her arrival, a pagan emperor had covered up Mt. Calvary with a large mound of dirt. Also, this same emperor dedicated a temple to the goddess Venus upon the very site that our Lord laid down his life in atonement for our sins. All this was done to stop Christians from worshipping the Crucified One at this most holy site. But when St. Helen came to Jerusalem years later, she had the pagan altar and temple destroyed. She then hired more than a hundred workers to dig into that mound of earth until they found a number of crosses that had been used for executions in earlier times. St. Helen eventually identified the Cross of our Lord when a cripple was healed and a dying woman was cured at the touch of one particular piece of wood.

A large section of the Cross was placed in a church in Jerusalem. But in the year 615 AD, this most precious treasure, this most holy of relics was stolen by the king of Persia. After many prayers and fastings, as well as a major battle, the True Cross was recovered and brought back to the Holy City. According to witnesses, the victorious Christian emperor carried this precious treasure in a silver case upon his shoulders. But as he was about enter Jerusalem, he found himself unable to take another step. The bishop of that city then suggested that the emperor disrobe of all his gold and silk and enter the city barefoot, as would a poor and humble man. Having done so, the emperor was able to bring the True Cross back into the Holy City.

Perhaps our dear Lord allowed this precious relic, this holy treasure to be removed for a time, so that the members of the Church would ever more appreciate Christ’s instrument of victory over sin, death, and Satan, so that the Church, like Our Lady of Sorrows, would long once again to stand at the foot of the Cross.

This great feast day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross marks these three events - Constantine’s vision and victory through the Cross - St. Helen’s finding of the True Cross - and yes the recovery of the Cross after it was unjustly stolen by enemies. But this day, September **14, also marks the one year anniversary of the promulgation of Pope Benedict XVI’s document, his Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which fully returned the treasure of the Ancient Rite, the Traditional Latin Mass to the spiritual life of the Church. There are no more indults or special permissions required to offer or participate in the Old Mass, not even a universal indult. The Traditional Latin Mass is not an exception to the rule, but rather a fully recognized form of worship on par with the new Mass and all the other rites of the Church. I have often wondered why this day, September 14th, the Triumph of the Cross, was chosen as the day to implement this ruling of the Holy Father. It seems fairly obvious to me. Like the Cross of old, the Traditional Latin Mass has been discovered again, it has been recovered, and it has been returned as a treasure to the Church, the New Jerusalem. **

**When Pope Benedict wrote the Motu Proprio - Summorum Pontificum - regarding the Old Mass, there was an amazing sentence, a written phrase from the Holy Father that was earth shattering. The telling and important line was: “It is therefore permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated”." **

**The Pope states that the Old Mass was never abrogated, never officially suppressed, never forbidden by law, but always allowed. **To emphasize this point, Pope Benedict, in a letter to the Bishops accompanying his Motu Proprio, wrote, what earlier generations held as sacred, remain sacred and great for us, too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. In short, there were no written texts officially outlawing the celebration of the Old Rite, juridically speaking.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

As Pope Benedict’s favorite liturgist, Msgr. Klaus Gamber, once stated, not a single document exists expressly mentioning the right of the Holy See to modify, much less abolish, the traditional rite.

It is also said that Archbishop Bugnini, the man put in charge of liturgical reform especially after Vatican II, was seeking to have the Old Mass abolished officially with the introduction of the New Mass. In Bugnini’s own book, namely, The Reform of the Liturgy, he states that he approached the Cardinal Secretary of State to apply for a legal ruling suppressing the Traditional Latin Mass. The response from the Cardinal was in the negative - The Cardinal Secretary of State refused to give his permission to suppress on the grounds that such an attempt would be seen as casting odium (or hatred) on the liturgical tradition. Again, no official suppression was ever made.

**But, as many of you well know, de facto, in reality, in the every day life of the Church in the Latin Rite, the Old Mass was, by and large, forbidden, rejected, and abandoned. A Catholic priest recounted a conversation he had with his bishop. During their talk, the priest said that it was reasonable for Pope Paul VI to create a new rite of Mass, but it was unreasonable to forbid the celebration of the traditional form of Mass. The bishop then quipped, “Oh father, if they had not banned the Old Rite, nobody would have gone to the new.” **

What can we conclude, then? The Old Mass was officially and lawfully always permitted, but practically suppressed and taken away from the spiritual life of Catholics. The conclusion is that an injustice was done. The treasure of the Traditional Latin Mass, was, for all intents and purposes, stolen from the faithful, lifted from parishes, taken from priests, and snatched away from the laity. And this theft, if you will, was not committed by pagan emperors of old, but rather by our own, by those who were called to preserve and protect this ancient treasure. Not mounds of dirt, but mounds of bureaucracy, tons of threats, false calls to obedience, and disdainful writings about the old ways, sought to bury the old Mass for good and to dissuade Catholics from ever again worshipping according to the traditional form. **But like the True Cross, perhaps our dear Lord allowed such an injustice, so that we could begin to appreciate once again a treasure that had been lost for a time. That the Church, like our Lady of Sorrows, would mourn for this loss, and long once again for the return of the ancient Mass. ** [Preach, baby, preach!]

This is a day to celebrate…this first anniversary of the implementation of the Motu Proprio - Summorum Pontificum, is a time to rejoice, for the treasure has been fully recaptured and it is now being fully restored in the Church, the New Jerusalem. And in celebrating this day, we ought to be thankful, thankful to Almighty God, for this is His Work…and let us be grateful for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin, and to St. Joseph, and Ss. Peter and Paul. But let us also be grateful to two men, two giants who courageously faced untold opposition, for it was not the shovels of St. Helen’s workers that unearthed the treasure this time, but the pens, the mighty pens of Pope John Paul II, of holy memory, and Pope Benedict XVI.

In 1984 - and I think it is important to go through the time line and the battles fought to regain the treasure - in 1984, the first of these mighty men issued an indult allowing bishops to grant the Old Mass to those faithful who requested it. This was a start. Later in 1986, Pope John Paul II appointed a commission of nine cardinals to examine the legal status of the Old Mass, including Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The cardinal’s commission stated clearly that the promulgation of the New Rite did not suppress the Old Rite and that bishops could not forbid priests from offering the Traditional Latin Mass. With this finding, Pope John Paul II released the document Ecclesia Dei in 1988 stating that the aspirations of traditional minded Catholics must be respected by bishops and that a pontifical commission be established to satisfy their desires for the Ancient Mass.

During all this time, the second giant, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, was also very much involved in recovering the treasure. In one of his many books, Ratzinger commented that, for fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Ratzinger then continued, “anyone who nowadays advocates the continuing existence of this ancient liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper, all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising…the Church’s whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don’t understand why so many of my fellow bishops have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance”.

continue…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

And how right was the good cardinal in regards to intolerance.** I remember being down at the Shrine of the Blessed Sacrament in Hanceville, AL. There I was privileged to offer the New Mass in a very reverent setting, with the Latin language being the main language of worship and the direction of the priest being towards the good Lord. There are good Novus Ordo Masses and good Novus Ordo priests. I also witnessed other forms of the Mass, including the Maronite Rite, the Byzantine Rite, as well as the Anglican Use Rite. But when a priest sought permission from the local bishop to celebrate the Traditional Mass for the nuns back in 2003, he was refused. I think, too, of a time in the late 1990s when a traditional priest and a group of pilgrims requested to have the Traditional Latin Mass in one of the many small chapels or side altars of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The request was denied by the local rector and sacristans. Any Mass, any rite it seemed, except that of our fathers. Since the beginning of the new millennium, however, there were rumors of greater indults, even universal permissions in exceptions to the law, but many were pessimistic. But on the seventh day of the seventh month, in the year 2007, a gift was granted beyond anyone’s imagining. The full return, the full acceptance, of the Classical Roman Rite, the so called, Old Mass. The treasure had been recovered…what had been unjustly taken away, was justly brought back upon the shoulders of Pope Benedict XVI. **

But getting this treasure fully through the gates of Jerusalem will not be easy, for there is still resistance. Some complain against the pope claiming that you can’t turn back the clock. As G.K. Chesterton, the English journalist once stated, however, you actually can turn back a clock, adjust the dials and turn the hands. Corrections can be made**. And for those bishops and those priests who continue to put up obstacles to the Pope’s expressed will, **I would remind them what Archbishop Ranjith of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship recently stated, namely, that those obstructionists are acting as instruments of the devil. A charge has been made against traditional minded Catholics in the past, that they considered themselves more Catholic than the pope. Well, the same charge could now be aimed, perhaps, at those who refuse to accept the Old Mass as a treasure and a normal part of the Catholic life. Do these people see themselves as more Catholic than Pope Benedict who desires that his Motu Proprio be implemented without delay? **

The treasure, the ancient treasure of the Old Mass, like the Cross of Old, has been discovered, recovered, and returned to the life of the Church. The presence of the Old Rite will benefit the Church beyond our imagining, including enriching the new rite or the ordinary form of Mass. But it also ties in with the theme of Pope Benedict’s very pontificate, namely, the importance of continuity between the past and the present. With an old treasure having been rediscovered, we can truly say that the Church of today is the Church of yesterday."**

 

[Dempsey1919]

This was a very good sermon. I have mixed feelings regarding the SSPX as I know there are many good SSPX folks, but there are also a lot of bad.

Archbishop Lefebvre truly believed in his cause, and acted according to his conscience. The case of the SSPX is far from simple, and has more to do with Church politics than anything else. I really believe that the SSPX was vicimised by certain people within the Church, most notably the French Bishops who were jealous of the success at Econe. However, I also recognise the fact that the SSPX are not innocent. They are disobedient, and they incorrectly blame Vatican II for the troubles within the Church.

I hope the excommunications are lifted and I hope the SSPX rethinks it’s position on Vatican II. I hope they come to realise that the problems have arisen out of the way the Council was interpreted, and that there are no problems with the actual documents themselves.

The SSPX saved the Tridentine Mass from extinction, and for that I am truly thankful. The Church will be far richer once the SSPX priests are welcomed back into full communion with Rome.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If the Archbishop acted out of what he perceived to be a necessity there was no valid excommunicated. This is written into canon law.

Yet there was not necessity as the pope had already given in to him and agreed to a bishop being consecrated for the SSPX. Also Canon Law states;

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

The Pope is the legislator and he stated that the act of the Archbishop was illicit and caused him to be excommunicated. There is no “defect of form”.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Yet there was not necessity as the pope had already given in to him and agreed to a bishop being consecrated for the SSPX. Also Canon Law states;

Can. 16 §1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.

The Pope is the legislator and he stated that the act of the Archbishop was illicit and caused him to be excommunicated. There is no “defect of form”.

Byz,

No offence, but you and your ilk have been proven wrong again and again when arguing with the SSPX. First it was the “pro multis”, then it was the non-abrogation of the old Mass. Each time you had a statement from Rome supporting your position, and each time both you and your document were proven totally wrong.

Your next embarrasement will come when Rome admits what everyone already knows: that the “excommunication” was null and void from day one due to a defect in form. And this may happen sooner than you think.

You said that John Paul II “stated that the act of the Archbishop was illicit and caused him to be excommunicated”. Yet in the same documument John Paul II issued an “indult” for a Mass that was never abrogated. An “indult” is permission to do what the law does not permit. But, as we now know (and the SSPX knew the entire time), that old Mass had never been forbidden by law. Thus, no "indult was needed. In fact, the indult served to confirmed the common error. And, as we know, John Paul II knew full well that the Mass had never been abrogated due to the commission of the 9 Cardinals in 1986.

Yet in spite of that, in the same document John Paul II referred to the old Mass as a “previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition”, once again implying that it was a thing of the past that required special permission, which was false.

So, the document you quote has already been shown to be completely defective. I personally doubt John Paul II wrote it, and I wonder if he even read it before he signed it.

 

[Lainey63]

I do believe that I have read that there are a few major obstacles one being the refusal to accept the Norvus Ordo Mass-according to Sedavacanists we who do attend any church that has the Norus Ordo Mass are going straight to hell, we are not receiving the Body & Blood of Christ…just wafers. If that is what they believe-because that is what they are saying…how are they going to overcome that issue. They talk about the errors and some of the outlandish & illicit acts committed by some of the priests saying the Norvus Ordo who also must be held accountable by the bishops and by the Pope. I also think that the pastors have given laypeople way too much (name removed by moderator)ut in areas of the Mass…we have no business being in…thus causing more errors. I have looked at some of their websites (sedavacanists) and quite frankly find them (the websites) to be quite hateful and arrogant…not true defenders of the faith…that is only my perception-whatever its worth. I can barely understand their arguments. I think if anyone of the saints could have given up on the Roman Catholic Church…it would have been St. Francis, or St. John of the Cross.
Anyway I do also hope & pray that we all can become One Holy Roman Catholic Church…just like in the time of St Francis this church does need to be repaired…there is no denying that.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Byz,

I thought I would quote the indult from 1984 for the use of the old Mass, which is what John Paul II referred to in Ecclesia Die, the document you quoted.

First let’s see what John Paul II said in Ecclesia Die:

Ecclesia Dei, John Paul II:

To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition, I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the church.

1. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my apostolic authority I decree the following: …

c) Moreover, respect must everywhere by shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.Quattuor abhinc annos]

Now let’s take a look at what Quattuor abhinc annos says.

Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments

Quattuor abhinc annos

October 3, 1984

Most Rev. Excellency:

Four years ago, by order of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the bishops of the whole Church were invited to present a report:

concerning the way in which the priests and faithful of their dioceses had received the Missal promulgated in 1970 by authority of Pope Paul VI in accordance with the decisions of the Second Vatican Council;

concerning the difficulties arising in the implementation of the liturgical reform;

concerning possible resistance that may have arisen.

The result of the consultation was sent to all bishops (cf. Notitiae, n. 185, December 1981). On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called “Tridentine” rite was almost completely solved.

Since, however, the same problem continues, the Supreme Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of these groups, grants to diocesan bishops the possibility of using an indult whereby priests and faithful, who shall be expressly indicated in the letter of request to be presented to their own bishop, may be able to celebrate Mass by using the Roman Missal according to the 1962 edition, but under the following conditions:

a) That it be made publically clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.

b) Such celebration must be made only for the benefit of those groups that request it; in churches and oratories indicated by the bishop (not, however, in parish churches, unless the bishop permits it in extraordinary cases); and on the days and under the conditions fixed by the bishop either habitually or in individual cases.

We can see from this how the Mass, which was never abrogated, was teated. It was a “problem” that had to be “solved”. It was only when [thanks to Archbishop Lefebvre] this pesky little problem could not be “solved” (illegally suppressed) that an “indult” was granted.

Truth be told, the reason for the “problem” with the SSPX is because they continued to preserve the “problem” of the Old Mass. That was the crux of the matter. It was for this that the SSPX was initially suspended, and it was for the preservation of this Mass that the Bishops were eventually consecrated.

Archbishop Lefebvre suffered what he did for the preservation of the old Mass. He did not do it for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the entire Church. And if anyone will read the current writings of the SSPX Bishops, you will see over and over again that they are taking the stand they are, not for themselves, bur for the entire Church. It is for the Mass and for the faith that they are taking the stand they are.

The reason they have refuse to sign an agreement thus far is because they want to have doctrinal discussions with Rome first. They want Rome to reconcile the contradictions between what was taught before the council and what is taught now. Rome will not engage them in this discussion for very obvious reasons. After all, if there was a simple explanation for the contradiciton between what was taught infallibly then and what is taught now, Rome would simply explain it The problem is, these contradictions cannot be reconciled because they are opposites.

There is a sermon that Bishop Fellay gave in August of this year that goes into a lot of the behind-the-scenes discussions between the SSPX and Rome. I am trying to find a way to post it online so I can link to it. I received it via e-mail, and it’s too long to post on this forum.

If I can find a link online I’ll post it here.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

There is a sermon that Bishop Fellay gave in August of this year that goes into a lot of the behind-the-scenes discussions between the SSPX and Rome. I am trying to find a way to post it online so I can link to it. I received it via e-mail, and it’s too long to post on this forum.

If I can find a link online I’ll post it here.

Well, that didn’t take me long. Here’s a link to the Sermon:

angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22952

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

This was a very good sermon. I have mixed feelings regarding the SSPX as I know there are many good SSPX folks, but there are also a lot of bad.

Unlike the Catholic Church as a whole where everyone is a saint.

It would be interesting to have a pole taken from member of a particular SSPX Church and an average Novus Ordo Church to determine what percent believe the dogmas and moral teachings of the Church.

You’d be lucky to find 10% in an average Novus Ordo church who believe all the dogmas and moral teachings of the faith, and you’d be lucky to find anyone in an SSPX Church that denies even one of them.

 

[ProVobis]

First let’s see what John Paul II said in Ecclesia Die:

Actually it was more than just “said.”

It was a DECREE, a very high force of law.

But disobeyed by most of the bishops, who nevertheless erroneously decided to make the schismatic act of the archbishop the focal and ultimate point of Ecclesia Dei.

 

[ProVobis]

I guy that I work with who goes to a SSPX chapel in Chicago told me that an announcement from the Pope on the removal of the excommunications of the four Bishops may come in mid December from what he heard.

I don’t know about mid December but the pastor there had been organizing a novena and plenty of rosaries said so that those excommunications were lifted soon. Let’s hope their prayers work.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Unlike the Catholic Church as a whole where everyone is a saint.

I never said the mainstream Church had no bad apples. You have heard me complain about the problems in the Church, and you know that I am not an enemy of the SSPX. However, I do not agree with the continued disobedience of the SSPX. Pope Benedict is working very hard to heal the schism and it would be nice to see Bishop Fellay accept the olive branch that has been extended to him. Other traditionalist orders entered into full communion with Rome when Summorum Pontificum was issued. The SSPX should do the same. I am aware that they have difficulties with Vatican II, but I am sure these issues can be solved after they have returned to the fold. I hope to see this schism healed, and I hope Bishop Fellay is willing to compromise with the Holy Father.

I appreciate the fact that the Archbishop Lefebvre acted according to his conscience, but I also know that his followers have become more extreme over the years. Certain SSPX followers behave as if everything post 1950 is bad; they even moan when they see women wearing pants! This extremism is what concerns me, and I worry that this will prevent the SSPX from returning to full communion with the Supreme Pontiff.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I never said the mainstream Church had no bad apples. You have heard me complain about the problems in the Church, and you know that I am not an enemy of the SSPX. However, I do not agree with the continued disobedience of the SSPX. Pope Benedict is working very hard to heal the schism and it would be nice to see Bishop Fellay accept the olive branch that has been extended to him. Other traditionalist orders entered into full communion with Rome when Summorum Pontificum was issued. The SSPX should do the same. I am aware that they have difficulties with Vatican II, but I am sure these issues can be solved after they have returned to the fold. I hope to see this schism healed, and I hope Bishop Fellay is willing to compromise with the Holy Father.

It is a complex situation that exists due to the extra-ordinary situation in the Church. The crisis in the Church is deeper than just the Mass. The faith itself is being destorted by those in the highest levels of authority. Formally condemned error is promoted and put into practice. At root, it is the faith itself that is under attack - and the attack is coming from the hierarchy.

I can understand your concern. I know it seems as if everything could be resolved if the SSPX would just sign an agreement. They could exist like the FSSP. The postion of the SSPX, however, is that they want to address the root problem of the crisis before signing an agreement; that is, they want to discuss the points of doctrine that are at the roof of the crisis. The main points of doctrine are religious liberty - an error that has been condemned many times - and its sister, false ecumenism, which is seeking to build a “church” more universal than the Catholic Church. The “new church” will included heretics and schismatics. This “new church” has the approval of, and is being built by, the hierarchy. For evidence of this, read what the Bellamand Agreement says about the heretical and schismatic Orthodox; and read what Pope Benedict has had to say about the hereticsl Taize Community, which is a religious community considering of heretic and Catholics living “as one”. Pope Benedict gave the Protestant leader of the heretical sect communion at John Paul II’s funeral. Both of these error (religious liberty and false ecumenism), have already been condemned by the Church. The SSPX refuses to simply ignore these underlying errors, even though it would make their life much easier if they did.

I appreciate the fact that the Archbishop Lefebvre acted according to his conscience, but I also know that his followers have become more extreme over the years. Certain SSPX followers behave as if everything post 1950 is bad; they even moan when they see women wearing pants! This extremism is what concerns me, and I worry that this will prevent the SSPX from returning to full communion with the Supreme Pontiff.

Well, as one who is familiar with the SSPX from the inside, I can say that most of what you read about on the intenet is greatly exadurated. I agree that there are some tendencies within certain people in the SSPX that are off base, but that is to be expected. The devil works on those in the SSPX just as he does everyone else. He will always attack us at our seak point. Therefore, he will not tempt the Traditionalists towards Liberalism, but rather to the other extreme. Unfortunately, some people give into this temptation which is why there exists soe extreme tendencies.

 

[ProVobis]

I never said the mainstream Church had no bad apples. You have heard me complain about the problems in the Church, and you know that I am not an enemy of the SSPX. However, I do not agree with the continued disobedience of the SSPX. Pope Benedict is working very hard to heal the schism and it would be nice to see Bishop Fellay accept the olive branch that has been extended to him. Other traditionalist orders entered into full communion with Rome when Summorum Pontificum was issued. The SSPX should do the same. I am aware that they have difficulties with Vatican II, but I am sure these issues can be solved after they have returned to the fold. I hope to see this schism healed, and I hope Bishop Fellay is willing to compromise with the Holy Father.

Was Vatican II the real problem? The Archbishop signed all the documents.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not a removal of the excommunicated, but a declaration that it was null and void from the beginning due to a defect in form, which is exactly what the SSPX has said the entire time.

Except this hasn’t happened. When the Holy Father or his designee says it, I will listen.

You’d be lucky to find 10% in an average Novus Ordo church who believe all the dogmas and moral teachings of the faith, and you’d be lucky to find anyone in an SSPX Church that denies even one of them.

More junk, made up statistics? As I pointed out earlier, the SSPX membership is defined as those who attend. I would stack up those who attend my Catholic parish any day against an SSPX chaped on orthodoxy. All that and obedience to boot.